followmefandomcom-20200214-history
Scenario Design
Scenario Design There are a number of ideas and principles that we apply when creating our scenarios. Almost all of our scenarios are linked directly to lesson in our military science courses, in some cases an instructor will ask for something specific but not often. There are two main sources of scenario material within our miliary science courses. The first source is the lessons themselves. The second source are the course assessments. A course assessment is a test, the cadet is given a situation and may be required to write an order or create plan. What we will do, is take the lesson or assessment and digitize it in Follow Me. We creat the maps, unit database, events, and artificial intelligence. Each scenario is an opportunity for the cadet to demonstrate their understanding and comprehension of concepts and ideas relating to tactics. Using terrain to approach an objective, direct fire planning, task organization, templating the enemy, coordination and synchronization, graphic control measures, etc. That is why we devote a significant amount of time playtesting and tweaking the final version. During playtest and tweaking is when we apply the principles and ideas I'm about to discuss. Adaptability "Fight the enemy not the plan" most leaders in the Army have heard this at one time or another. There are many reasons why a leader may get caught up in fighting the plan instead of the enemy, maybe they are committed to their plan having worked on it for some time, or maybe they are paralyzed by indecision because of a change in the enemy or terrain. At the core of this indecision may be the inability to adapt to a dynamic, fast flowing situation. One of the principles that we apply in creating a scenario is adaptability. For our purposes a simple change in enemy location or a minor change in terrain is enough to inject some level of uncertainty and exercise their ability to adapt. Whenever we want to "ramp it up" we give them a change of mission with a very small window to plan for that change. Keep in mind that just because there is a change in the situation does not necessarily mean that they must change their plan. Of course the ability to recognize those situations when a change is not necessary comes with experience, but with enough "repetitions" in Follow Me we can exercise their ability to recognize those situations and make solid decisions. Developing The Situation In a recent visit to the Infantry School at Fort Benning, GA we wanted to validate some of the concepts in Follow Me. We had several discussions with senior and junior NCOs who were attending the Advanced/Senior Leaders Courses as well as captains attending the infantry advanced course. All of them talked at length about UAVs and how common they were in both theaters. Almost all of them agreed that UAVs were useful and that in most cases they never executed a mission without some kind UAV support. We asked them if there was any benefit to learning to fight "blind" without UAV support and many of them said NO. Of course we do not agree, we think there is some value in learning to fight "blind" without a UAV crutch. In our scenarios we want the cadets to learn to develop the situation based on several factors such as anticipated enemy actions, terrain, their own ability to piece together information and "paint" a tactical picture of the situation Anticipated Course of Action Part of the testing process is to anticipate what the cadets will do in a given situation. Having observed over 5000 cadets using Follow Me and reviewing several hundred AARs it is not hard to figure how a cadet will approach a typical situation. We will playtest a scenario several times and discuss different COAs and the associated tactics, guess what this also makes US better tacticians. We will try to determine what the most popular cadet COA will be, in some cases it is not the best. We also identify friction points for each scenario which allows us to calibrate ourselves to the scenario and what we expect to see from the cadets. This process helps us identify specific teaching points that we can highlight in an AAR or better yet while they are actually playing the game. We also identify what control measures they might use especially when it comes to direct fire planning or coordinating maneuver. The idea is that the instructor should know everyting about the scenario being played, terrain, enemy set, courses of action, etc. Abstract Maps If you have viewed some of the maps in the screenshots section you will notice that all of the maps are "made up" or geotypical. Even the map that was based on a region in Afghanistan is abstract. Whenever we show people the game the subject of geospecific terrain always comes up. Can we use satellite imagery in Follow Me, yes we can, do we want to, the answer is NO. Keep in mind if it was absolutely necessary then of course we would do it but for out purposes it simply is not necessary for the following reasons: *We do not want any distractions when it comes to the player determing the type of terrain. It takes practice to be able to "analyze" satellite imagery, for example shadows are somewhat confusing, hills may look flat or are hard to discern, ground cover is seasonal and may not be interpreted correctly, and the list goes on. *Terrain specific problem sets. It is far easier for us to create specific problem sets when it comes to the terrain, rather than searching google earth for an area that meets our requirements. For example I may want a river with one bridge plus a hill that overlooks that bridge and maybe a road that runs East-West and a small village 300 meters South of the bridge. I also want two versions of that map, one that is more desertlike, and the other with a dense forest same layout but with woods. The only situation where accurate terrain modeling would be necessary is when you want to do a rehearsal. Otherwise, for the purposes of instruction, abstract or geotypcial terrain is fine.